Chinese Discussion Thread
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
put otto to produce vills manually, decrease production time by 5%, and then we will have a little more mechanics for this civ, with a simple change
Kaiser sucks
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
Garja Noob
grunt the best
Kickass God
BSOP OP
- gamevideo113
- Howdah
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Apr 26, 2017
- ESO: gamevideo113
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Imo the two castle armies should stay in the castle, even if they are changed, to prevent them from being too brooken.
Brooken army: Initially i was thinking about 3 changdao+1 flamethrower, but the cost of the army would result in an ugly 285f 170w 170g. Therefore it would be probably better to move it to colonial and make it 2 pikes+1 flamethrower (good for sieging i guess) for 290w 170c. It is still very expensive for being an age2 army and pikes are already in 2 other armies so it doesn’t seem to be a brilliant idea in general, but perhaps helps a bit the viability of flamethrowers and is surely less brooken than changdao+meteor. Alternatively a steppe+pike army would also be good for sieging (3 pikes + 2 steppes for 180w 170g, or 4 pikes 3 steppes idk)
Mongolian army: 3 keshiks + 2 meteors, kinda justifiable by the fact that both these units have a bonus vs artillery like the original mongolian army, fortress army (ofc) for 345f 350c available in the castle.
Imo old dynasties reforms is overkill. Keshik getting 10 atk is already a big buff.
Imperial keshik with mongolian scourge vs cav (without manchu combat and western reforms): 20x2x4=160 every 3 seconds
Imperial jinete with full cards and upgrades: 52x3=156 every 3 seconds
Maybe steppe would benefit from old dynasties, but i’m not sure about buffing keshiks even more.
Brooken army: Initially i was thinking about 3 changdao+1 flamethrower, but the cost of the army would result in an ugly 285f 170w 170g. Therefore it would be probably better to move it to colonial and make it 2 pikes+1 flamethrower (good for sieging i guess) for 290w 170c. It is still very expensive for being an age2 army and pikes are already in 2 other armies so it doesn’t seem to be a brilliant idea in general, but perhaps helps a bit the viability of flamethrowers and is surely less brooken than changdao+meteor. Alternatively a steppe+pike army would also be good for sieging (3 pikes + 2 steppes for 180w 170g, or 4 pikes 3 steppes idk)
Mongolian army: 3 keshiks + 2 meteors, kinda justifiable by the fact that both these units have a bonus vs artillery like the original mongolian army, fortress army (ofc) for 345f 350c available in the castle.
Imo old dynasties reforms is overkill. Keshik getting 10 atk is already a big buff.
Imperial keshik with mongolian scourge vs cav (without manchu combat and western reforms): 20x2x4=160 every 3 seconds
Imperial jinete with full cards and upgrades: 52x3=156 every 3 seconds
Maybe steppe would benefit from old dynasties, but i’m not sure about buffing keshiks even more.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019
Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
- Kazamkikaz
- Dragoon
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Dec 27, 2017
- ESO: Kazamkikaz
- Location: Braga
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
look wrote:put otto to produce vills manually, decrease production time by 5%, and then we will have a little more mechanics for this civ, with a simple change
That is not negotiable
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
I think it's odd that the meteor hammers have no damage penalty against vills (something like x0.7). Combined with their ridiculous range, they prevent all vills retreat during a raid and basically slay them before they make 5 steps, unless you have inhuman reactions.
It would be okay to compensate by giving Iron flails a x1.5 bonus versus vills I guess.
Meteor hammers come with iron flails with the forbidden army, so maybe the effects of this wouldn't be significant. However it would make 4 iron flails shipment a bit more viable, while slightly nerfing meteor hammers and the Black Flag army. What do you think?
It would be okay to compensate by giving Iron flails a x1.5 bonus versus vills I guess.
Meteor hammers come with iron flails with the forbidden army, so maybe the effects of this wouldn't be significant. However it would make 4 iron flails shipment a bit more viable, while slightly nerfing meteor hammers and the Black Flag army. What do you think?
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Djigit wrote:It would be okay to compensate by giving Iron flails a x1.5 bonus versus vills I guess.
Can't tell if sarcasm or not
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Not sarcasm. It's 28.5 dmg vs vills, slightly below what meteors do right now. What's the issue? The area of effect?Kawapasaka wrote:Djigit wrote:It would be okay to compensate by giving Iron flails a x1.5 bonus versus vills I guess.
Can't tell if sarcasm or not
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Djigit wrote:Not sarcasm. It's 28.5 dmg vs vills, slightly below what meteors do right now. What's the issue? The area of effect?Kawapasaka wrote:Djigit wrote:It would be okay to compensate by giving Iron flails a x1.5 bonus versus vills I guess.
Can't tell if sarcasm or not
No, just that your opening line was essentially stating "this cav unit that isn't specialised towards raiding is too good at raiding", so suggesting buffing another unit to also be better at raiding didn't seem like a logical follow-up.
Are Iron Flails particularly bad at raiding?
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
China has raiding cav already, steppe riders are like cheap opris now on Beta.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
That's only because I realized EP changes work in a yin and yang way. Don't ask me why, but something always has to be compensatedKawapasaka wrote:Djigit wrote:Not sarcasm. It's 28.5 dmg vs vills, slightly below what meteors do right now. What's the issue? The area of effect?Show hidden quotes
No, just that your opening line was essentially stating "this cav unit that isn't specialised towards raiding is too good at raiding", so suggesting buffing another unit to also be better at raiding didn't seem like a logical follow-up.
Are Iron Flails particularly bad at raiding?
Iron flails do 19 dmg with 1 area so they are average/below average.
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Djigit wrote:That's only because I realized EP changes work in a yin and yang way. Don't ask me why, but something always has to be compensatedKawapasaka wrote:Show hidden quotes
No, just that your opening line was essentially stating "this cav unit that isn't specialised towards raiding is too good at raiding", so suggesting buffing another unit to also be better at raiding didn't seem like a logical follow-up.
Are Iron Flails particularly bad at raiding?
Iron flails do 19 dmg with 1 area so they are average/below average.
Nevermind I completely misread that and for some strange reason thought your proposal for buffing the Flails' damage was an alternative to nerfing the Hammers', rather than a complementary change. My bad.
- Kazamkikaz
- Dragoon
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Dec 27, 2017
- ESO: Kazamkikaz
- Location: Braga
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Djigit wrote:That's only because I realized EP changes work in a yin and yang way. Don't ask me why, but something always has to be compensatedKawapasaka wrote:Show hidden quotes
No, just that your opening line was essentially stating "this cav unit that isn't specialised towards raiding is too good at raiding", so suggesting buffing another unit to also be better at raiding didn't seem like a logical follow-up.
Are Iron Flails particularly bad at raiding?
Iron flails do 19 dmg with 1 area so they are average/below average.
i got raided today with them and realized how good they are at doing it, so i dont know why u want more
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Meteor hammer raids shouldn't be nerfed imo, its one of china's few counter-eco units. New beta stepees are decent now i suppose but still pretty trash
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
I'm entirely willing to try that, if the current setup doesn't work out. If, on the other hand, it does, it's preferable. My plan, right now, is this:Mitoe wrote:For me I just want the Chinese banner army changes reverted or at least returned to the Castle. I don't really mind that they're changed, but they are definitely a problem in the War Academy. Having the extra options sounds like a nice QoL change for them, but receiving the extra flexibility for free from the War Academy doesn't blend well with China's compositional design IMO.
1. Decrease Iron Flail cost from 240f to 220f and increase Meteor Hammer cost from 175c to 190c (please note how this would both buff the largely unviable "Imperial Army", and nerf "Black Flag Army"). Test. Then, if overpowered or unpopular, try "2", below.
2. Move "Black Flag Army" and "Mongolian Army" from the War Academy to the Castle. Test. Then, if overpowered or unpopular, try "3", below.
3. Revert "Black Flag Army" changes. Test. Then, if overpowered or unpopular, opt for "4", below.
4. Revert "Mongolian Army" changes.
Did you play Chinese on EP7, yet?
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Better pathing and faster Steppes should be viable; especially when the banner-army changes are taken into account.dansil92 wrote:Meteor hammer raids shouldn't be nerfed imo, its one of china's few counter-eco units. New beta stepees are decent now i suppose but still pretty trash
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
I am very keen on getting more player feedback on whether Chinese is too weak, on non-wood crate starts. If it is, I suggest a Village cost buff (on top of shuffling Iron Flail and Meteor Hammer costs).
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Having those new banner armies is a huge balance flop.
China banner mechanic is based purely on having loopholes. Adding these banner armies is the equivalent of adding single trainable units for Russia next to the batch mechanic. It simply doesn't make sense from design pov and it's detrimental to balance.
China banner mechanic is based purely on having loopholes. Adding these banner armies is the equivalent of adding single trainable units for Russia next to the batch mechanic. It simply doesn't make sense from design pov and it's detrimental to balance.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
i agree with garja just reducing chinas "weaknesses" compositionally. It would be like giving more range to flaming arrows or rusketeers upgrades in age 2
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
On the starting crates:
200f 300w -> same as before
300f 200w -> -40w and delayed TP
300f 300w -> +100f
300f 200w 100g -> about +50w, delayed TP
Basically 2 iterarions are roughly the same as before, one is better and one is worse. This is assuming you want to FF. If the plan is colonial it may even be slightly better than before.
200f 300w -> same as before
300f 200w -> -40w and delayed TP
300f 300w -> +100f
300f 200w 100g -> about +50w, delayed TP
Basically 2 iterarions are roughly the same as before, one is better and one is worse. This is assuming you want to FF. If the plan is colonial it may even be slightly better than before.
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
I think china’s colonial is in a good spot right now simply from the keshik steppe buffs, in particular obstruction radius. I’d rather the steppe keshik army remain an option, so prefer the compromise of moving it back to the castle to avoid clutter.
oranges.
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
I agree that buffing steppe and keshik is prob just enough to make it viable. The steppe-keshik army is ofc fun but it's objectively too good.
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
I had an idea for addressing some players' concerns with giving Chinese dynamic ("random") crates:
– Village cost changed from 200w to 50f, 150w
This change should increase the viability of chopping 100w for a Village, on non-wood starts, which should, in turn, alleviate the issues some players experience, with the implementation of dynamic ("random") crates.
Depending on feedback, it might see testing.
– Village cost changed from 200w to 50f, 150w
This change should increase the viability of chopping 100w for a Village, on non-wood starts, which should, in turn, alleviate the issues some players experience, with the implementation of dynamic ("random") crates.
Depending on feedback, it might see testing.
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
- gamevideo113
- Howdah
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Apr 26, 2017
- ESO: gamevideo113
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
Not a fan. The change might be functional but it's not very nice from a design point of view.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019
Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
crap nerd changezoom wrote:I had an idea for addressing some players' concerns with giving Chinese dynamic ("random") crates:
– Village cost changed from 200w to 50f, 150w
This change should increase the viability of chopping 100w for a Village, on non-wood starts, which should, in turn, alleviate the issues some players experience, with the implementation of dynamic ("random") crates.
Depending on feedback, it might see testing.
- Sargsyan
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3372
- Joined: Dec 18, 2017
- ESO: lamergamer
- Location: North Macedonia
- Clan: c0ns
Re: Chinese Discussion Thread
just revert china changes
krichk wrote:For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge Challenger_Marco
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests